Background to the
AAA Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards

Over the past several years in response to deaths and harm to participants
in biomedical research, the federal government, institutions of higher
learning, and others have taken steps to ensure that research involving
human participants comply with the federal regulations governing the
protection of human subjects or participants in research. The regulations,
originally developed with the intent to govern higher risk biomedical
research, apply to all research involving human participants supported
by the federal government. In many instances, institutions of higher
learning and others who undertake research require that the regulations,
known as "the Common Rule," apply to all research, private or public,
involving human participants. The Common Rule affects, among others,
ethnographic research and related social science research.

In October 2003, the federal office that oversees the protection of
participants in research, Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP),
Department of Health and Human Services, determined that oral history
did not constitute "research" and OHRP excluded this methodology from
the regulations outlined in the Common Rule. As a result, oral history
projects would not necessarily be required to undergo review by Institutional
Review Boards (IRBs). Since oral history is one of the many methodologies
used in ethnography, the question rose as to whether or not other ethnographic
methods or ethnography as a whole could be similarly excluded.

At the 2003 AAA Annual Meeting, a roundtable discussion was organized
to address the relationship of ethnography and IRBs. The session "How
Does Ethnography Fit Into IRB Guidelines? What Are the Challenges" involved
Patricia Marshall (Case Western Reserve University), Edward Bruner (University
of Illinois Urbana-Champaign), Edward Liebow (Battelle Seattle Research
Center), Stuart Plattner (National Science Foundation), and Nathaniel
Tashima (LTG Associates, Inc.). A number of recommendations came out
of the well-attended and engaged discussion. An important and immediate
outcome was the suggestion that AAA develop a statement on ethnography
and IRBs to be used by policy makers, IRBs, and ethnographers.

The statement would be a concise educational document that defines
ethnography, describes ethnographic methods, addresses benefits and
risks, emphasizes the importance of protecting those studied, considers
exemption and expedited review of research, and addresses informed consent.
Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban (Rhode Island College) and Patricia Marshall agreed
to draft the statement and an initial draft statement was circulated
to the Committee on Ethics. AAA staff Melissa Coates and Amy Beckrich
provided background research to assist in developing the draft statement.
The Committee on Ethics met via telephone conference call on April 23,
2004 to discuss the statement and, subsequently, a revised version of
the statement was drafted with the help of AAA staff Peggy Overbey and
Stacy Lathrop.

The full Committee on Ethics voted unanimously to approve the draft
statement (7 yes, 0 no). Two ex-officio members of the Committee also
voted and approved the draft statement.

Stuart Plattner and Helen McGough (University of Washington), Marjorie
Speers (Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection
Programs and Glen Drew (OHRP) contributed to the development of the
statement.

On May 23, 2004 the AAA Executive Board considered the draft statement,
concurred with the scope, content and intent of the statement, and suggested
revisions at the Executive Board meeting. The proposed revisions were
incorporated and the Executive Board adopted the Statement on Ethnography
and Institutional Review Boards by electronic ballot on June 4, 2004.